Hi Hung, Reviewed and tested the patch. Ack.
/Neel. On 2016/08/26 12:02 PM, Hung Nguyen wrote: > Summary: imm: Remove the poll timeout in IMM testcases [#1970] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1970 > Peer Reviewer(s): Zoran, Neel > Pull request to: > Affected branch(es): 4.7, 5.0, 5.1 > Development branch: 5.1 > > -------------------------------- > Impacted area Impact y/n > -------------------------------- > Docs n > Build system n > RPM/packaging n > Configuration files n > Startup scripts n > SAF services n > OpenSAF services n > Core libraries n > Samples n > Tests y > Other n > > > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > --------------------------------------------- > > > changeset 420a7df52bd63f6014197523fc29d8ec9a9241a0 > Author: Hung Nguyen <hung.d.ngu...@dektech.com.au> > Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 13:29:26 +0700 > > imm: Remove the poll timeout in IMM testcases [#1970] > > Many IMM test-cases rely on poll timeout to end the while loop. That > will > slow the test because it has to wait for the timeout. Also the > test-cases > will fail if a callback doesn't come before the timeout occurs. This > patch > removes those timeout and uses a pair of piped file-descriptors to stop > the > thread. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > tests/immsv/common/immtest.c | 27 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tests/immsv/common/immtest.h | 4 ++++ > tests/immsv/implementer/test_SaImmOiCcb.c | 61 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------- > tests/immsv/implementer/test_saImmOiAugmentCcbInitialize.c | 47 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------- > tests/immsv/implementer/test_saImmOiImplementerSet.c | 58 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------- > tests/immsv/implementer/test_saImmOiLongDn.c | 133 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > tests/immsv/implementer/test_saImmOiSaStringT.c | 101 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------------------ > tests/immsv/management/test_saImmOmSaStringT.c | 40 > +++++++++++++++++++++------------------- > 8 files changed, 268 insertions(+), 203 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from reviewers. > > > Arch Built Started Linux distro > ------------------------------------------- > mips n n > mips64 n n > x86 n n > x86_64 n n > powerpc n n > powerpc64 n n > > > Reviewer Checklist: > ------------------- > [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!] > > > Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries): > > ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries > that need proper data filled in. > > ___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push. > > ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header > > ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable. > > ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text. > > ___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits. > > ___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files > (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc) > > ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests. > Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing. > > ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed. > > ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes > like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs. > > ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other > cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits. > > ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is > too much content into a single commit. > > ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc) > > ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent; > Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled. > > ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded > commits, or place in a public tree for a pull. > > ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication > of what has changed between each re-send. > > ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the > comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review. > > ___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc) > > ___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the > the threaded patch review. > > ___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results > for in-service upgradability test. > > ___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series > do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
